Foreclosures, plant closings, offshored jobs, underwater mortgages, miserable rates of unemployment, stagnating incomes: Is there any end to the woes of the struggling American middle? Apparently not, because now comes news of a trend guaranteeing trouble ahead for the more than half of the nation that make up the moderately educated and moderately earning middle  even if the economy improves.

That seismic shift, outlined in a new report from the National Marriage Project and the Institute for American Values, is towards more divorce, more out of wedlock births and, ipso facto, fewer kids with a hopeful future.

Family breakdown, to put it simply, has hit white middle America big time.

Researchers have known for a while now that there is a significant "marriage gap" between affluent couples and low-income, largely minority, ones. The children of well-to-do college educated couples are considerably more likely to be growing up in a home with both their mother and father present than the children of the poor  who are more often than not living without their fathers. It surprises most people to hear it, but rates of divorce among college-educated women have actually been declining since 1980...

What benefit do I have if I have three or four kids, get married and stay married?

At the end of the day, if I have no children I might pay a little more in taxes, but nothing that even nearly approaches the real cost of having them. Yet when I'm older I will reap all the benefits from those children even if I choose to have none, which would not have been the case 150 years ago, before we became so advanced, progressive, cultured and with a social/safety net.

If I gave you a trillion dollars and it were all in a huge pile but you were the only person left alive on this planet, what would that money do for you other than warm you as you burn it? Money is nothing more than an abstract concept of human capital/labor/creativity. It always has been and it will always be that the young feed the old. In our system today those that choose to have no children and live hedonistic into the day can live out their wildest fantasies, and in the end those with kids who self sacrificed will have their kids pay for the savage in his old age.

We have created a system that punishes having children. That punishes being married in its tax code. That gives the institution of marriage no status or privilege legally other than having a spouse being able to make a claim against one for alimony in case of a divorce. Try getting information on your married spouse when the doctors office calls that you wish to relay. Not even the most basic powers are assumed present when married; no you need to get a power of attorney for that. Divorce by the way is very easy and near consequence free ..

Most people will follow the path of least resistance and are outright hedonists (maximize pleasure). We have de-incentivized and devalued marriage in every respect. In the arts and entertainment, legally where it brings nothing other than risk if separated, in costs were the tax code essentially punishes people, granting anyone essentially the same privileges and perks of being married (i.e. gays), where those with kids won't even be the ones reaping the benefits of those kids when they are old and their kids are providing to sustain the system but those who chose to not have kids will still benefit...........

Most certainly, but they forget that this poor population has guns. A poor, demoralized population with rage at politicians is not a good combination.

Tell it to the Iraqis. Tell that to Al Qaeda. Tell that to the Taliban. Tell it to Somalians.

Sure. The greatest military in history has been training how to deal with "armed-to-the-teeth, poor, demoralized populations with rage for their politicians" for 20 years now, and they've learned a trick or two...

This is Obamas goal. Eliminate the middle class, and create two classes, the Nomenclatura-elites and the masses of poor, dependent on the government.

Guess which class Obama and his Marxist buddies are in .

I would say the useful-idiot class. Look at Europe: how many taxpayers are storming the streets, angrily (and sometime violently) making their displeasure about high taxes known?

None of them. Instead, the anger's coming from thwarted entitlement mentalities angry about their subventions being cut.

I can't figure out why, but it's the takers who are more aggressive than the makers. Impinging on so-called "positive rights" tends to cause riots; impinging on so-called "negative rights" (i.e., liberty) produces peaceful protests at most.

Europe and the U.S. are fortunate that Communism has been generally discredited, because the above-noted disparate reaction is a revolutionary Communist's dream - especially given the U.S. government fingers the likes of you guys as the 'domestic terrorists'.

One side note: Atlas Shrugged, despite its sparks, is oddly quietist with respect to politics. Its underlying political message is: "If you're good, you can only win by escaping." Despite this theme being profoundly anti-Nietzschean - who else but a slave wins by escaping? - Rand is still called Nietzschean. Go figger.

Red, I have to agree with most of your conclusions. However, I’d like to add another reason for the decline of marriage in the middle class. It seems to me that a large portion of blame belongs in the pulpit (if they are used anymore) and the failure of today’s ministers to lead their flocks and hold them morally accountable. Pastors today are shadows compared to the leading lights of Christian preachers years ago. They preached the Word, and made sure that their congregations knew what God asked of them. Most of today’s churches are more concerned with their bottom lines and how contemporary their music is. For what it’s worth...

18
posted on 12/27/2010 3:51:33 PM PST
by TheBlueMax
("To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them" -George Mason)

Also folks looking at marriage as just another gubberment contract that can be broken and resumed as long the state says so. Now lots of folks have been conditioned to think that marriage is defined by and originates from the state, so they accept any “marriage” the gubberment tells them to.

Good analysis, the only thing I might disagree with is...Divorce by the way is very easy and near consequence free ..

It's consequence free unless you're the father of kids, and you want to do the right thing and stay involved in their lives but your ex chooses to move them away. As my divorce lawyer said to me, "Face it, you have a bullseye on your back." Usually she gets all the rights and you get all the responsibilities, that's the American divorce system.

So very true. Priests nowadays are eager to embrace every leftist cause and completely silent when it comes to Christianity. It’s all a disgusting form of vanity where the priests are more worried about whether the leftists say they are good or bad then actually doing good. -Or even defining what is good and evil based on Christian morality.

Me too. FReeper rlmorel pretty much did as well as well as millions of other good men over time. Many times it is not just the court system that has fathers away from their children. Many times it is duty as well. Check it out.

I will say this about my dad: he spent the first 18 years of his career away at sea (basically between 1946 and 1964 (his last ship, USS Bristol out of Newport, RI, on which he was the XO, was one of the vessels that stayed longest on quarantine duty in Cuba 1962-63)

In 1963, when his orders came up, he requested shore duty. He knew that would be the end of his promotion path, for the most part. At that time, he had six kids ranging from one to seven years old, he was 38 years old, and had spent very little time with us.

He chose his family over his career.

He started out as a reservist in 1945 and was recommended for transfer to the regular navy, which in postwar 1946-1950 may have been a compliment, as I have been told by at least one source that many officers were trying to make that jump. I have all of his papers and service records now, and his fitness reports all included the coveted “recommend this officer for promotion and command” statement. There was a copy of a report of his performance when his ship was first on the scene in Belize in 1961 when Hurricane Hattie basically destroyed the main port and much of the country, hitting it square. His ship could not enter the harbor due to damage and the channels being destroyed, so they anchored a good ways offshore and sent my dad in with a team of sailors on a launch to survey the damage and find out what could be done. My dad advised his CO that they needed water and generators first, then began helping the shocked people there get things organized, begin dealing with bodies and so on.

In any case, he wanted to be with us, and so he was. For the next ten years, we traveled together around the world as a family. He never once expressed regret for not pursuing a command, and the fact that he never rose above Commander.

It is often said of men of his generation that they didn’t know how to express their love to their families. Well, I never heard my dad say the words “I love you” until he was in his seventies.

But he sure as hell said it loud and clear with his actions as a family man. My mom told me this aspect of his career after he passed away, something that had occurred to me, but he never discussed it and I never asked. I guess there were probably a lot of conversations between my mom and dad back in 1963 as his orders were coming up.

So my mom did that amazing balancing act that military spouses often do. They run everything, do everything, pay all the bills, and when the husband returns, they hand control back over to them until they leave again. Now, I suppose that doesn’t happen (or happens less often) since most people can see the inherent issues with transferring control back and forth like that, and probably choose to let the same person handle stuff.

Back then, the man did it, usually with no questions asked. And I now know that generated a HUGE amount of friction in not only their relationship, but the relationships of many people they knew.

On the subject, though...I DO believe with all my heart that a man is vital in a child’s life. For those early years of my life, even though my dad wasn’t there, the threat of having to answer to him when he came back in eight months was very real indeed, and it kept me from straying to far, even though I was a kid who could push the confines of common sense to dangerous and unsafe limits. I wasn’t evil or bad (my parents often said I was the quietest and least trouble of all) but I simply had no commonsense whatsoever. So I got in trouble a lot by getting hurt or ending up in compromising situations (like the time in Japan where I set a field on fire by firing smoke bombs into it from my house across the street with a slingshot. It didn’t occur to me that the red, blue or yellow smoke coming out also had sparks too, that could light dry grass on fire...)

They were anti-Christian,anti-family commie loving liberals.
The destruction of Western Civilization was MORE important, to them, than ANYTHING else. It IS their religion. Destroying families is their delight. Destroying this country is the goal.

The diminishing job opportunities for the middle class plus the government as sugar daddy to unwed mothers is now having a predictable result with a growing number of whites. The government is more dependable support than the job prospects of all too many.

Priests nowadays are eager to embrace every leftist cause and completely silent when it comes to Christianity. Its all a disgusting form of vanity where the priests are more worried about whether the leftists say they are good or bad then actually doing good. -Or even defining what is good and evil based on Christian morality. Its the very reason I dont go to church.

You describe the effects of Vatican II. The problems are so dire that we need true religion more than ever. This is true for everyone and especially for those with children. Don't give up. Find a traditionalist priest.

On the subject, though...I DO believe with all my heart that a man is vital in a childs life. For those early years of my life, even though my dad wasnt there, the threat of having to answer to him when he came back in eight months was very real indeed...

Back in the supposedly benighted days, single mothers and widows could draw authority from...God the Father. Not to mention, for widows, the soul of the real father gazing down from the afterlife.

Nowadays, the typical single mom doesn't have that source of strength. Need I point out how things have gone?

At the end of the day, if I have no children I might pay a little more in taxes, but nothing that even nearly approaches the real cost of having them. Yet when I'm older I will reap all the benefits from those children even if I choose to have none, which would not have been the case 150 years ago, before we became so advanced, progressive, cultured and with a social/safety net....

We have created a system that punishes having children.... Most people will follow the path of least resistance and are outright hedonists (maximize pleasure). We have de-incentivized and devalued marriage in every respect.

Classic, classic tragedy of the commons. What a way to make Social Security even shakier than it would have been otherwise.

Sad to say, it gives a powerful incentive for unrestricted immigration. It's not that hard to shrug off the "legalize and tax" argument with respect to marijuana, because doing so wouldn't add that much to government budgets on a percentage basis. Besides, any such tax revenue would go into the general till. If there's any tax-desirous constituency that'd be really swayed by that argument, it'd be government-employee retirees - or soon-to-be retirees.

On the other hand, "legalize immigrants and FICO-tax them" has a bigger constituency. The liberals either haven't clued in yet or have yet to launch a campaign on that basis.

Imagine seeing this sign held by an illegal immigrant on the news: "GRINGO - I PAY YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY!" It'd be a sign that the pro-amnesty faction is pulling out the main artillery.

Sigh. How did we get here? I do believe liberal tenets are primarily responsible. Sad.

To be honest, I think it's because "liberalism" is a gaggle of several types of liberals, each with their own agenda and hobby horse. Look at how often the actions of social liberals (in the narrow sense) have undone the work of economic liberals. The left hand often undoes what the right hand has done.

Result? Liberals need to blame conservatives - or anyone else - for being 'obstructionist'. Such are the wages of a side that can't get its own act together, except for disbursements from the Treasury or clamping down on some part of the private sector.

I agree with you. Out of wedlock births are a disaster. Here in Texas Medicaid (for the destitute) makes up 25% of the state budget. One half of all children are born at public expense, and two thirds of those in nursing homes are paid for by the state. I’m sure other states are just as bad. Our governments engender this type of social dysfunction and the Democrats exploit it to the max. Capitalism is a great system but it wasn’t meant to make these type of people members of the middle class. The Democrats would have you believe that it is greedy Republicans at the root of our dissolution. I know better.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.